Jump to content

User:Parent5446 Bot/Task Lists/WikiProject Television

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User:Parent5446 Bot

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Parent5446 Bot (talk | contribs) at 03:35, 21 June 2008 (BOT: Updating task list.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

To-do list for User:Parent5446 Bot/Task Lists/WikiProject Television:

To do list:
Major discussions/events:
Incubators:

Featured article candidates

FAC for No Such Thing as Vampires


The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:49, 15 July 2008 [1].

No Such Thing as Vampires

Self-nominator: Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has become a GA, and I believe that it passes all FA criteria. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 03:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Infobox image needs better fair use rationale.
  • Lead has no mention of reception?
  • "For vampires in general, it is shown that daylight is not good, but it does not cause them to burst into flames" - prose in general needs a spiff... it's OK (GA quality) but not really professional (FA quality)... Get someone who hasn't seen it to do a copyedit.

giggy (:O) 04:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I have given the image a better rationale (I think), and I added some mention of reception to the lead. I will ask someone to copyedit the article soon. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 05:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Someone has been asked. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 05:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I really like the production and reception sections and the free images inside them. I copy-edited some of the article, but after reading the beginning of the plot section, I was… well, lost (hmm, that doesn't work as well here). Some tips for the future: Instead of [[flashback|flashbacks]], just use [[flashback]]s; avoid self-references ("we") and contractions and make use of the edit summary field. I am not convinced that the picture being used has the strongest fair use claim of any possible screenshot. The necklaces, the funeral, the stabbing or some other picture may be better than a close-up of the (already pictured) main character hugging someone whose face cannot be seen. And have you seen this? Excellent work, –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
How about this picture? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 07:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I inserted the new picture. Better? Worse? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 08:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Better. Also, avoid weasel words. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay, links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The comingsoon.net link was replaced with the official Comic-Com website. The tvbythenumbers link was inserted to give credibility to the ratings, as two sources are better than one. I know moonlight-archive.com isn't a reliable source, but it's an interview. Trevor Munson said those words (unfortunately to an unreliable source) but I still think it's ok to provide the source. Futon Critic, I know it isn't considered to be very reliable, but that's the only place with that kind of information. Could exceptions be made for those citations? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 14:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, WP:V isn't a guideline, it's a policy. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I removed the TV by the Numbers reference. I still stand by my comment that the moonlight-archive.com should be allowed to stay. It is an interview, so I don't think (and this is what I think) that it really matters on which site it is posted. As for The Futon Critic references, I will try to find alternate sources. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 09:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
If you want, please take the moonlight-archive issue to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where others can weigh in on the issue. For me, it's a matter of how reliable is the place recording the interview. How do we know they didn't edit the interview or insert some bias into it. While it doesn't appear likely in this case, it's always a concern. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Several editors have said that The Futon Critic refs (for this page) are fine. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Futon Critic I still haven't gotten an answer yet for the Moonlight Information Archive. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 15:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The official Comic Con ref is dead. Is this http://www.mania.com/official-comic-con-schedule_article_55328.html a good alternative? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 15:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
It probably would work, mainly since it's not very contentious information. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. I'll insert it right away. Corn.u.co.pia ĐЌ Disc.us.sion 02:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OpposeComments Needs a fair amount of copy editing. Here are some examples from the start of the article:

  • Lead image caption needs to avoid repetition of "body" in the same sentence.
  • Opening sentence - no need to specify both "pilot episode" and "first season" since pilots by definition must preceed the first season.
  • Lede second sentence - need to define "sire" for those not familiar with vampire lore.
  • Lede third paragraph - rewrite to avoid saying "critic" three times in two sentences.
  • Plot section, first paragraph - "Mick arrives at the crime scene of the murder of a young woman" is a little clumsy, something like "...arrives at the scene of the murder of.." reads better
  • "Beth takes the picture, but cannot help but notice large puncture wounds on her neck" - I haven't seen this show, but are we really aware of her inner thought processes to this extent? Can she really "not help" but notice the wounds?
  • "While thinking of vampire-related titles for her story" - same issue - how do we know what the character is thinking?
  • "Beth runs into Mick, who she says looks very familiar, but he insists that they do not know each other" this seems like a convoluted way of expressing a simple sequence. I had to read this a couple of times to sort out who exactly said what to whom. You could split it into separate sentences to make it obvious: "Beth runs into Mick. She says he looks very familiar, but he insists that they do not know each other"
  • "At BuzzWire, Beth's editor tells her that she likes the vampire angle, with Beth saying it just came to her." - sudden jump of scene within the same paragraph. the phrase "with Beth saying" is confusing - is Beth talking simultaneously with her editor? Again this sentence needs a rewrite.
  • "The next morning, Beth finds the dead woman's car, with a necklace hanging from the rearview mirror." How does she find the car? Just a lucky coincidence?
  • "Meanwhile, Mick goes to visit Josef, his vampire friend who is 400 years old." - what is the important information here: that Josef is Mick's friend, that Josef is a vampire, that Josef is 400 years old or that Mick visits Josef? It seems like too much information crammed into one sentence.
  • "Josef seems concerned about the "vampire" murder being bad for their safety." Why the scare quotes around vampire? You haven't told us yet whether this is a vampire murder or not. Do vampires really murder their victims? Aren't they feeding? Is that the same as murder?
  • "Mick goes to the morgue to get some blood and information from his friend, Guillermo (Jacob Vargas)." what does "to get some blood" imply? Is he really drinking the blood of his friend Guillermo? That's a very good friend.
  • "He smells the dead girl found in the fountain, and realizes that a vampire did not kill her." Is her body in the morgue? How does he know a vampie did not kill her by smelling her blood?
  • "Mick and Beck break into the dead girl's apartment and find another of the necklaces, with a vial of blood inside". Who is Beck? We haven't been introduced to this character yet. Or is this a typo for Beth? If so, why is Mick working with Beth? You say "another of the necklace" but this is the first mention of necklaces or vials of blood, so I'm confused.
  • "Someone calls Beth, a person named Josh (Jordan Belfi), and Mick disappears". Re-order this sentence: Josh (Jordan Belfi) calls Beth, and Mick disappears". You also need to say why Mick leaves (or does he literally turn invisible?)
  • "...her lecturer Professor Ellis (Rudolf Martin)..." only "Professor" should be wikilinked to Professor, since that article is not about the character of Professor Ellis.

These are just examples. The whole article needs a pretty thorough rewrite by someone who hasn't worked on it before. I'm afraid this isn't at featured article quality yet. Gwernol 11:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

All points have been fixed. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 12:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing these specific issues, Cornucopia. However, I think you need to get someone fresh to do a thorough copy edit of the article. It still suffers from prose issues and doesn't flow well for the reader. You still have lots of very short sentences in there which break up the flow and make it hard to follow the plot your writing about. The The examples above are examples, rather than an exhaustive list of the issues that need to be fixed. For now, I'm remaining opposed, though I'd be happy to reassess this after further work. Good luck, Gwernol 12:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I've taken another look at the article. Sorry it has taken a while, I have been busy off-Wiki. The article has definitely improved - thanks for the hard work. I've found fewer issues with it, so I've removed my formal oppose, above. However I'm not ready to support it yet. There are still some prose issues I'd like to see ironed out. I've fixed a couple of obvious ones, but several need an editor who is more familiar with the show and this particular episode. Here's what I found:
  • The wikilink of "sire" goes to Childe (World of Darkness). This seems problematic. The linked article is tagged as having multiple issues. The linked article deals with the term childe, not sire (though sire is mentioned as a synonym). Most importantly that article covers a different mythology from the Moonlight mythology - is the vampire legend in Moonlight really exactly the same as World of Darkness?
  • In the plot section: "Beth has some one on one time with Ellis..." too informal and unspecific. Does this mean Beth talks to Ellis after the class is over? What do they talk about?
  • Plot section: "Beth passes out..." its not clear to me why she passes out, since it was Mick who was stabbed
  • Plot section: "Mick...lights the place on fire" you shouldn't refer to "the place" without having first told us that "the place" is. Can you change "the place" to be more specific?
  • The Continuity section is misnamed, since it deals with part of the pilot, not its continuity with the rest of the series.
  • Continuity section: "Vampires also have heightened senses, allowing them to hear very well, smell the past and glimpse the future" - there are no senses that can be heightened in order to allow you to glimpse the future. That ability is not a heightened sense, it is something else.
  • Production section: "Trevor Munson ... spent the better part of two and a half years writing a novel around this character" should read "...writing a novel featuring the character"?
  • Production section: "The script later fell into the hands of..." again suffers from being too informal and not specific enough. Can you clarify this?
  • Production section: "...to turn his script into a television series" reword to "...to rewrite the script as a television series"
  • Production section: "With an almost entirely different cast, a retooled, full-length pilot for television audiences was re-shot and creative control of the show changed hands". This needs to be split into two separate sentences. The information about reshooting the pilot is separate from the information about creative control changing hands. In the second sentence we need to know who gained creative control and why.
  • Production section: Picture of Bruce Willis - Willis was briefly mentioned as a possible cast member for the film version of the series. It seems odd then that the only photo illustrating this section is of Willis.
  • Production section: "Originally, Josef was to be portrated by Šerbedžija, who according to O'Laughlin, was twice Jason Dohring's age". Not sure about the "according to O'Laughlin" bit. Is there some doubt that Šerbedžija was twice Dohring's age? I've already fixed the spelling error in that quote.
  • Production section: "it was a concern that he was more a "father figure" to Mick when Josef was much older" I just can't parse this phrase. What exactly is the studio's concern - that he would seen as a father figure because he was older? Father figures usually are older. This needs to be rewritten to more clearly express the intent.
  • Reception section: "Maureen Ryan of the Chicago Tribune also praised the lead actors, saying that O’Loughlin's was "passable in the lead role", and that Myles was "reasonably good"" I wouldn't describe saying that the lead actor was "passable" counted as praise, unless you want to include this as an example of "damning with faint praise". I think you need to reword this.
  • Reception section: I'm concerned that the lede does not properly reflect the reception section. Reading the lede I was left with the impression that the reviews were pretty mixed, with some pans and a few positive. After reading the reception section, its pretty clear that the pilot was almost universally loathed by the critics with only a couple of minor exceptions - and even these amount to faint praise with significant caveats. I think the lede needs to more accurately reflect this.
Hope that is helpful. The article is much better and getting closer to the prose quality required for a Featured Article. Best, Gwernol 12:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I fixed most of the points raised, though I am not sure what to do with a few. Another user requested a meaning for "sire" in the lead, though I am not sure how to insert it without making it sound akward. Do you think it would be okay if I left it as it is? I changed the "Continuity" section to "Mythology"; I couldn't think of anything else. For the sense thing, seeing the future could be related to "the sixth sense" (I realise how stupid that sounds). The source I used to verify that statement uses those exact words, so I'm not sure what to do. Maybe change it to "Vampires have heightened senses, allowing them to hear very well and smell the past. They also develop psychic powers, allowing them to glimpse the future". As for the photo of Willis, I previously had two others (which were more relevant), but they were both deleted. That was the only free image I could find. :D Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 14:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually the "other user: who asked for sire to be Wikilinked was me :-) My point above was not that it was incorrect to Wikilink sire, but that the particular article you linked to doesn't seem like a good one. The right link would be (in order of preference): 1) an article about the specific meaning of "sire: in the Moonlight mythology (or a link to the appropriate section of an overall Moonlight mythology article) 2) an article about the general concept of siring (again, or to a section in a general article about vampire mythology) 3) If none of the above exist, then find an external source that explains what "sire" means in the world of Moonlight, and use that to explain the meaning. Gwernol 21:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I changed the link to the main Moonlight page, where I wrote a very brief description of a sire. I think the writing is a bit akward, read it and tell me what you think! Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 02:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppos-ish comment I have begun copyedititing the article, but I really find the plot summary to be too unfocused, long and unhelpful for someone (like me) who hasn't seen this programme. For example the first plot paragraph: Who are Mick and Beth etc. (private investigator, reporter, can be shorter than in the lead)? Why is it important that Beth tries to take pictures than takes pictures? Is it important that the body was found in a fountain? In the next paragraph, Beth writes an article for BuzzWire, although it has already been stated before that she "is reporting for the online newspaper BuzzWire". In general, the plot summary should be trimmed by one third down to 450 or less words, and the problem will mostly dissolve. I can't comment on the other parts of the article yet, but FA potential is there. – sgeureka t•c 09:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I condensed the plot a bit, but it still needs work. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 13:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The plot has been cut down. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 06:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The length of the plot section seems better now. I'll reserve other comments for when I've finished reading the article. – sgeureka t•c 06:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment (None of the following is meant to sound harsh, but it is my honest opinion as an FA reviewer, to help you get the article to FA quality.) The reception section appears to be a collection of every review that appeared in reliable sources, but in an unordered and unsummarized way. For example, the section mentions in several sentences how four different reviewers compared the series to Angel – why not say once that several reviewers compared it to Angel[1][2][3] and be done with it? Reception of the cast appears everywhere, and info about positive and negative reception is mixed. Many sentences begin with "S/he said". There is no real flow; it reads like a list of reviews was thrown together to appear like prose, which is good as raw data in a GA, but not thoughfully arranged reception information in FA quality. Mind you, I have seen several FA episode articles do the same, so I won't oppose, but I can't give my support either. (To get my point better across, imagine if a wiki reader cares more about (1) whether Tom Shales of The Washington Post gave a negative review, or (2) if the show was similar to Angel, had a good/terrible cast, had (no) potential, etcetera. I.e. focus on the points of reception, not on the reviewers.) – sgeureka t•c 15:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I will try to resturcture the section soon. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 15:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The reception section has been almost completely rehashed. Please reread it. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 17:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I originally wanted to wait with another comment until I have read the article very closely in full, but I just skimmed the reception section and must say, very good job. I'll give the article a good read-through and a copyedit tomorrow, and it's already looking very close to support (at least). Goodnight. :-) – sgeureka t•c 19:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Nice to see some positive comments ;) lol Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 02:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment I've run a copyedit through the plot section for conciseness, but you should check again where I messed up in grammar (not so likely) or plot summary (more likely). I have also left two invisible comments that should be addressed because the plot summary there (or the significance of sentences) didn't make sense to me. If the Mythology really constitutes most of the introduction to this episode, the section should either be moved before the plot section or should be merged into the plot section as the first paragraph, as this explains much of the plot. My reading of the Production and Reception section will follow. – sgeureka t•c 15:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of merging some of the mythology into the plot, which I will do in a few minutes. If you feel that it is not better, then I can change it back and put the mytho section before the plot. Oh yeah, please make sure you keep on pressing control-c on your edits, just in case there are a few edit conflicts. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 15:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, should the "Mythology" section be placed as a subheading under "Plot"? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 15:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. I am too unfamiliar with the show, but since I am not a big fan of stubbish sections anyway, I think it could find a place elsewhere. Maybe it works in the production section as an explanation after "the original concept", but that's just an idea. – sgeureka t•c 17:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I think it's nearly there, but I've done all I could. You should still try to get rid of some "saying"s in the Reception section. It is also my feeling that the Reception section could do without four or so less quotes (they are little bit overwhelming I think), but I'll leave that decision to you. – sgeureka t•c 17:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, well thanks for all your help! Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 17:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support; I just did a casual read through and the prose has improved significantly since I last looked at it. Happy to support - well done! —Giggy 07:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Requirement for professional-standard formatting (overlinked), Cr. 1a.

  • Overlinked. Many of your links are valuable to readers, and they're significantly diluated by the bright-blue patchwork at the moment. I delinked a few trivial ones at the top, including the date autoformatting, which, please note, is no longer encouraged (see MOSNUM). Please weed out the trivials throughout: items such as "CBS" repeated link, "eulogy", "assistant", "garlic", hello ...?

I took a spot-check on one single para in the middle.

  • A certain looseness in the tone, and I see reviewers above have pointed this out. "spent the better part of two and a half years"—well, um ... how long? If WP doesn't tell you exactly, who does?
  • The dreaded with as a connector (very poor) finished off by the ungrammatical noun plus -ing: "with Bruce Willis being considered".
  • "The script was then shown to ..."—We know it's a sequence of events, so remove "then".
  • "to executive produce the project"—nope, readers won't cope with that as a verb, despite the flexibility of English. "to be e ps on"
  • And there's another "with plus noun plus -ing".

Can you find someone else to go through the whole text and polish it up, please? It's not a huge job, but needs doing so we can be proud of it. TONY (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Support - Made a few tweaks. Seems good enough now. I think I preferred Image:Rade Serbedzija.jpg to the image of Bruce Willis. Everyone knows what BW looks like. It seems more interesting to see what Dohring's character almost looked like. There's probably some reasoning behind this I don't know about. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. :-) I added the image of BW because the image of Rade was deleted, but now that it is back I will reinsert it. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 04:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, 1a (prose/narrative) and 1c (sources). The prose is pretty good but there are errors and narrative problems as outlined below. The plot section needs copy-editing. Also, there are a couple questionable sources (TV Guide and TV Squad, details below).
    • I don't really understand the genre classification of "supernatural" in the lead. What makes a drama supernatural? In the article about the show, it is called a "paranormal romance".
    • "Behind the scenes, the pilot underwent several major changes." Not a good paragraph opener. Suggests context that isn't there yet—changes from what? Describe what was changed before you say it was changed. You go on to mention an "original short presentation" that we don't know about.
    • Run-on sentence in the lead: "Many critics criticized the acting and the writing, one said that it had the 'worst writing of the new season'."
    • "After the dead woman's lecturer, Professor Ellis (Rudolf Martin), has given an eulogy at her funeral, a blonde girl named Chloe attacks him, slashing his neck." The phrase "dead woman's lecturer" is odd. People have dentists and gardeners, but not lecturers. I'm not certain about regional dialects, but "eulogy" normally is pronounced beginning with a "y" sound meaning it should be "a eulogy".
    • "Beth tracks down Chloe, who explains the professor's vampire-worshipping blood cult and his belief in being a vampire." Meaning he believes he is a vampire, or he believes he can become a vampire?
    • "Later Mick finds Chloe's dead body, and knowing Beth has gone to Ellis's class, he runs off to save her." Are we to assume Ellis has killed Chloe? Don't make readers guess at this if it was stated in the show. Ellis had a class after being slashed in the neck at a funeral? "Runs off" is inappropriate tone.
    • "Ellis attacks Beth and though she escapes ..." Prefer "although" for more formal prose.
    • "When she wakes up, she remembers that Mick saved her as a child and that he was stabbed by the assistant." These happened at the same time? Confusing narrative.
    • "The conventions of Moonlight are based on a unique vampire mythology ..." I'm not convinced what you've listed is a "unique" mythology since I have seen these elements of vampire mythology in other fiction. Please provide a relevant quote from your sources that establishes the mythology as unique. A TV Guide episode recap is not an acceptable source for critical interpretation.
    • "Joel Silver and Gerard Bocaccio came on board ..." Colloquial, please revise.
    • "The project was renamed Moonlight when CBS gave it an early pick-up ..." What is "giving an early pick-up"? Explain jargon or wikilink.
    • The TV Squad source is unreliable, I think. I was looking around the site for their editorial guidelines and I saw "There are no strict editorial guidelines; every blogger's opinion is his or her own." That's bad news. --Laser brain (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Sorry, but can you elaborate on why TV Squad is unrealiable? Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, according to our guidline, "As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." TV Squad's own FAQ (as quoted above) states that they do don't that at all—there are no editorial guidelines. --Laser brain (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I have fixed most of the raised points. I increased the lead size, what do you think? For this line: "The conventions of Moonlight are based on a unique vampire mythology", I added a reference to an interview with O'Loughlin. I think the TV Squad ref is okay, it is not sourcing anything controversial or important; it is merely sourcing an editor's point of view. Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 04:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Much improved—your use of TV Squad seems okay on second look, but I'm not convinced the particular blogger you cite is anyone special. Why should his views be cited in an encyclopedia article? Do you have any print sources citing TV Squad as a notable blog? --Laser brain (talk) 05:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
          • I removed the line that mentioned the reviewer, though I left the parts that were described by him; e.g. "Several critics compared it detrimentally with the television series Angel". Is this compromise good enough? Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 10:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Reviewing only image licensing: looks good. --NE2 13:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Featured article review

There are no candidates at this time.

FLC for List of Moonlight episodes


The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 17:56, 23 June 2008 [2].

List of Moonlight episodes

I believe the list meets all the featured list criteria. There has been much improvement over the last month or so. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 17:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

  • Per WP:LS#Bold title, don't wikilink the bold part of the title
  • Futher to that, repetitions of the article title in the Lead ( as in "This is a list of episodes … for Moonlight") are become less accepted. See Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 3#Straight repetitions of the title in the opening sentence
  • The show is described as being in the "supernatural" genre, but the main article calls it a "Paranormal romance, and the infobox there describes it as "Supernatural", "Action", "Horror", "Drama", "Romance", and "Crime". Pick one or two max and be consistent towards the main article, as this one is basically a sub-page.
  • "...with other vampires in the city." Which city?
  • "The program premiered..." Say "The series" instead, as program is more similar to a single episode.
  • Provide context to non-American readers by describing CBS. For my Featured stuff I've used "Canadian broadcast television network CTV", which for here can be turned into "...in the United States on CBS, a broadcast television network."
  • "Moonlight began its first season on September 28, 2007[1]" is a repeat of the second sentence. Additionally, references should be placed after punctuation, not midsentence
  • "55" and "eighty-eight". Per MOS:NUM, it doesn't matter which is used, but consistency throughout the article should be followed.
  • "only twelve episodes[5] of the original thirteen-episode order were produced." Again, mid-sentence placement of the reference needs fixing
  • "Moonlight was likely to return for a second season;[8] though on May 13, 2008, CBS announced that Moonlight was officially cancelled." Wrong punctuation mark with the semi-colon
  • Explain why Warner Bros. tried to sell the show to other networks. I assume they produced it, but it should be stated
  • I noticed the list of episodes is using {{episode list}}. A few months ago new Writer=and Director=fields were added to the template, so these should now be used instead of Aux1=and Aux2=for the same purpose.
  • Use "Episode #" instead of just "#". Use "Production code" or "Prod code" for PC.
  • Instead of the "American viewers in millions" column, I recommend changing it to "US Ratings/Share (total viewers)" as the article Nielsen Ratings says that that is how they are usually given. Then, as an example, for the first episode the entry would be "5.7/10 (8.54)". This would negate the subsequent ratings table.
    • Use the Aux4=field in the Episode list template, as the information is less to do with the episode as it was produced, and more to do with how well it was received by the public.
  • Episode 1:
    • "make it appear that the young coed was killed by vampires" and "co-ed" is used again later in the summary. What's a co-ed? If you mean female, I'd use that instead
    • "Fortunately, Mick comes to her rescue," With the use of "Fortunately", it sounds a little too in-universe for my liking
  • Episode 2:
    • "Mick becomes furious when convicted killer Lee Jay Spalding is released from prison after serving 25 years for murdering his girlfriend." It's not exactly clear whose girlfriend we're talking here
    • "Beth's friend Julia writes a bout about Spalding," Should be "about", I think
  • Episode 3:
    • "Now that Beth knows Mick's a vampire, things are tense between them." passive voice
    • Pipelink Sire (vampire) with "sire"
    • "his new bride, now ex-wife, Coraline." is clumsy
  • Ep 4:
    • Pipelink News leak with "leak"
    • "They hole up" is a bit colloquial
  • Ep 5:
    • First sentence is too long
    • Don't use "vamp"
  • Ep 6
    • "The vampire blood makes a human feel a bit like a vampire," Change the "a bit" part, and that comma should be a semi colon
  • Ep 7
    • "find her cameras, which were stolen." → "stolen cameras."? Same meaning, less words.
    • "is a dead ringer for" → "is identical to"?
    • "Doppleganger" → "Doppelgänger" and wikilink to Doppelgänger
  • Ep 8
    • No need for the comma in the first sentence
    • "post traumatic stress disorder" → "posttraumatic stress disorder"
  • Ep 9
    • "When Mick works closely on a case with Morgan, a photographer who bears strong resemblance to Coraline, Beth grows jealous and decides to research her background." No need to repeat that Morgan bears resemblance to Coraline, as it's discussed in Episode 6
    • "...not realizing that she has become human." How did this happen?
  • Ep 10
    • Explain what "Buzzwire" is. Is it a TV show? Magazine? If so it should be italicised, not in quotes per the WP:MOS.
    • "Mick kills him." The hitman, or Josef?
    • What signs does Coraline show of being a vampire?
  • Ep 11
    • What's the MS-13 gang?
    • "Mick and Beth witness the event, and drive after him." Comma isn't needed
    • "When they finally catch up, Mick attacks the perpetrators, though one manages to shoot Josh." is in a passive voice
  • Ep 13
    • How do we know his cure is temporary?
    • "When Beth's boss, Maureen, is killed" second comma isn't needed
    • Write out ADA in full and wikilink
    • Remove "Naturally"
  • Ep 14
    • "Buzzwire" again. Again, if it's a TV show or magazine/newspaper, it should be in italics instead.
    • "When Mick gets run over," → "Mick is hit by a vehicle, and"
  • Ep 15
    • "When Mick learns that the boy was the grandson of his World War II buddy, he realises that he may be the boy's biological grandfather." makes no sense
    • Comma isn't needed in "stalks Beth, and attempts to attack her"
    • According to Wiktionary, it's quitting with 2 t's.
  • Ep 16
    • Second sentence is too long and a bit confusing
    • Get rid of the first sentence, and put "a basketball player with ties to Josef and several other vampires" after Vince's name in the current third sentence
    • Explain why it's treason. And perhaps wikilink
    • "uknown" WP:TYOP
  • The Futon Critic is not considered to be a WP:RS, so that reference needs to go.
  • "Deadline Hollywood Daily". Looks like a blog, which is also not allowed under WP:RS.
  • Same for TVByTheNumbers.com

There's rather a lot to be going on with, so I'm opposing for now. Let me know when they've all been addressed. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC) More Nice work on the edits so far. I've done a little tweaking to the article, but there's one more thing I think needs to be resolved:

  • Ref 14 from TVByTheNumbers.com is a blog, which isn't allowed as an WP:RS. Exceptions could be made if the author is notable (do they write for a major publication, perhaps), but I'm sure ratings could be sourced from somewhere else.

Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I found another source for the ratings, Entertainment Now, is it any better? The problem is that for the first episode, the ref states the ratings, but for the rating info for the second episode, the ratings for the first episode is different. By which numbers should I go by? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 07:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
That one is again a blog. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • There's a couple of references to "the first season" in the Lede, but as the series spanned only one season, it's not really the first, it's the only, so "the series" or "Moonlight" should be used instead.
    • "Moonlight began its first season on September 28, 2007" → "Moonlight premiered on September 28, 2007"
    • "Werksman said that the first season would be released on DVD" → "Werksman said that Moonlight would be released on DVD"

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 11:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Don't italicize publishers that aren't publications in "References" per MOS:TITLE
  • Add an image of a DVD boxset, if one exists (I think it has one?)
  • Expand contractions, including "wasn't", and "doesn't"

Gary King (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have made the appropriate changes, though I am not sure with publications should not be italicized. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 10:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Italics have been removed, where applicable. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Collectonian (talk · contribs)
Oppose from Collectonian (talk · contribs)
  • Needs an image, preferable of the box set if available
  • The ratings column seems rather superflous and is not a common featured in an episode list. Its crunching the table and making it look crowded. As the ratings of the show is already better summarized in the lead, so I'd drop the column all together. With it gone, the airdate can stop wrapping. Also seconding note that TVByTheNumbers does not appear to meet WP:RS
  • Change Episode # -> Ep # to reduce the width of the column
  • Missing information about availability on DVD. Since its a single season, a mention in the lead is fine, but should be mentioned somewhere.
  • List needs a copyedit and some of the summaries are lacking what appear to be pertinent details. A few prose issues I spotted:
    • "Though two puncture wounds to the neck make it appear that the girl was killed by vampires, Mick knows that this was not the case." but doesn't say how or why he knows this?
    • "Fortunately, Mick comes to her rescue, using his vampire strength to overcome the true villain." - ortunately? says who? the "true villain" is a bit dramatic sounding
    • "Mick knows Spalding is not the reformed man he pretends to be, and feels responsible because..." responsible for what, Spalding being in jail, escaping, being alive?
    • "Beth's friend Julia writes a book about Spalding, showing him as a great man. When Spalding kidnaps Julia" - why did he kidnap Julia if she wrote a book about how great he is?
    • "After finding out about Mick being a vampire, Beth works hard to wrap her mind around this new information, which proves difficult." overly verbose. Can be said much more simply, such as "Beth struggles to accept Mick being a vampire."
    • "Mick finds Leni in the desert just before the hit man arrives, but the pair flee into the desert and get stranded. " confusing
    • "After being forced to feed on Beth's blood, Mick has been successfully avoiding her." switching tense and wordy. "After being forced to feed on Beth's blood, Mick avoids her."

As a side note, why are there individual articles for the first five episodes? Only the first shows any notability. 3-5 are pure plot summary and IMDB trivia. I'd suggest considering a merge/redirect back to the list for those and axing the links. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is TV by the Numbers not a reliable source? –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
As noted above, it appears to be a self-published blog/website. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The DVD hasn't been released yet, so I'd go with a screenshot of the intertitles. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Amazon has a ad/poster that would also be a good choice. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
All taken care of. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 11:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The rest of the episode summaries still need copyediting (those were just a few examples) :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Please check the page again. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 10:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
It needs to be copyedited by someone who isn't the primary editor. :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
And how can I get someone to copyedit it? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 15:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Can try asking one of the folks listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers#General copyediting -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The lead has been copyedited. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 01:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The whole article has been copyedited. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 05:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, all comments have been addressed. One minor note, though. In the ep 13 summary, it mentions Mick and Beth are considering a relationship. Ep 16 says Beth wants to stop dating because of the vampire-human thing. When did they go from considering to dating? :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 08:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • You have a dead link per this.
  • Not sure your FU rationale for the image is correct - doesn't look like a cover to me, looks like an advert...
  • Image (on my browser - Safari) overlaps the table in the following section.
  • Agree with Collectonian re:copyedit.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Your first three concerns are no longer valid. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
My third is still valid I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The TOC added by Collectonian has fixed the problem. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 08:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Someone has been asked to copyedit the article. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 03:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
The whole article has been copyedited. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 05:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


Support I think this is as near-perfect as it will ever be. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
FLC for List of Twin Peaks episodes


The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 14:08, 4 July 2008 [3].

List of Twin Peaks episodes

A few days ago, I saw that this list of one of my favorite TV shows wasn't in very good shape. It wasn't terrible but it definitely needed some sprucing. So I got some sources and expanded the list and even included a cover and detailed synopses for each season. Looking at it now, it does seem a lot better, even if do say so myself! So review the list and tell me whether it seemed like "a damn fine cup of coffee" or not. Thanks! (SUDUSER)85 15:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • No bold links in the opening section of the lead please.
  • Place citations per WP:CITE, i.e. immediately after punctuation where possible.
  • " To date, both seasons of Twin Peaks have been released on..." why To date? Won't this always be the case from now on?
  • Why are the number of episodes (in total and each series) in bold?
  • " spanning two seasons of 30 episodes, until its cancellation" - no, it still spans two seasons of 30 episodes. Subsequently it was cancelled.
    •  Done Sentence reworked. (SUDUSER)85 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Last sentence of lead not cited.
  • "1990–91" rather than "1990 – 1991", or at least axe the spaces.
    •  Done Spaces axed (SUDUSER)85 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • What makes episode world a reliable source?
  • Second general reference and third external link are essentially identical, probably lose the ext. link.
    •  Done rmv to include just one in the general refs. (SUDUSER)85 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)  Done all suggestions by The Rambling Man have been addressed by (SUDUSER)85. (SUDUSER)85 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments (edit conflicted with Rambling Man above)

Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove links from any bold text, or remove the bold, per WP:LEAD.
    •  Done See The Rambling Man's comments above. (SUDUSER)85 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Publishers in references only need to be italicized if they are publications and follow MOS:TITLE.
  • "released October 30, 2007[3]." – reference goes after all punctuation marks per WP:FOOTNOTE
    •  Done See The Rambling Man's comments above. (SUDUSER)85 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)  Done all suggestions by Gary King have been addressed by (SUDUSER)85. (SUDUSER)85 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  •  Done Remove the bold from "of 30 episodes. " (SUDUSER)85 13:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Gman124 talk

Comments

  • Need references for the writers and directors.
  •  Done The episode numbering in season two don't match. --Gman124 talk 21:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done all suggestions by User:Gman124 have been addressed by (SUDUSER)85. (SUDUSER)85 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment tv.com is not a reliable source since it is user edited. So find other reliable sources. Gman124 talk 19:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    •  Done I was able to refer the Production Documents that came with the Twin Peaks Gold Box. I don't thinks gets any more reliable than that. (SUDUSER)85 04:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

now Support --Gman124 talk 04:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew
  •  Done Don't split the bold text in the intro sentence. Even better though, think of a more artistic way to introduce the article, instead of a repetition of the article's title
    • I think it's okay now. Take a look if you want to. (SUDUSER)85 14:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Take a look at today's main page article, Tiridates I of Armenia. It doesn't begin with "This is a comprehensive article about Tiridates I." It jumps straight in and tells the reader that he was King of Armenia in AD 53. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs •email) 15:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I though for lists like discographies and episode lists, you were supposed to introduce it like that? (SUDUSER)85 06:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done "Subsequently it was cancelled on June 10, 1991." No need for "subsequently". Who cancelled it? The network, or the producers decided to end it?
    • ABC decided to cancel the series on June 10, 1991 due to declining ratings in the second season. - I think that qualifies. (SUDUSER)85 14:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done Use the prodcode= field in {{episode list}}, and also AltTitle= for the Pilot's alternative title.
  •  Done Extra space at "Washington ."
  •  Done Are the episodes half-hour or an hour long? Either way some of the summaries are a bit too short. Five lines is good, but two lines isn't.
    • I have included the length in the lead, though I think that the summaries are quite okay, I mean look at other articles like List of The Unit episodes and List of Desperate Housewives episodes. What is your take on this? (SUDUSER)85 06:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I'd prefer them to be longer. At least a sentence per "act" (by which I mean between each commercial break.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

        • Ok I'll work on it later. (SUDUSER)85 07:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done Is the link to watch full episodes on CBS a reference? It's not much help to anyone outside the US. Stick it in the External links and say US-based IPs only.
  •  Done What is reference 4? A book? If so the title needs itallics
  •  Done Rationale for the boxset is wrong. It says it's a logo, but there's one specifically for DVD covers. {{Non-free video cover}}.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done Everything suggested by Matthewedwards has been fixed by (SUDUSER)85 14:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC) on 14:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I did a quick review. I would like to support this because the list is appropriately structured and sourced, and the article has a good lead. However, I see a need for copy-editing of the season and episode descriptions. I have fixed one sentence whose wording really bothered me and a second sentence that was awkward, but I still see other opportunities for improvement. For example, I am bothered by trite verbosity such as "...expose Twin Peaks as the disturbed, unsettling town that it is" and the numerous sentences that are strung together by "and"s and commas. Skimming the article, I also detect a few misspellings. --Orlady (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Malachirality appears to be inactive at the moment. So I've approached Golbez instead. (SUDUSER)85 15:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I've done some of the needed copy-editing, but I continue to think that more is needed. I am not a particularly good candidate for this job because I think the writing style used in these and other episode descriptions is horrifying. Having said that, here are some examples of items that I think are particularly important to fix:
  •  Done One piece of awkward wording that has me stymied is "Leo's battered housewife Shelly decides to get revenge." The noun "housewife" is not normally preceded by a possessive. Is Shelly the wife of Leo? In that case, perhaps she should be called "Leo's battered wife." Is it important to call her "housewife" instead of "wife"?
  •  Done In the sentence fragment "Cooper has a vision of a mysterious giant, as he lies bleeding from a serious gunshot wound," am I correct in thinking that Cooper is the one who lies bleeding and not the mysterious giant (which is what the word order implies)?
  • In the sentence fragment "Josie returns from Seattle, bearing her 'cousin' Jonathan from Hong Kong in tow," is there a literal meaning to the words "bearing" and "in tow" (that is, was she carrying and/or towing him?) or are these words merely being used as idiomatic expressions meaning "with"?
--Orlady (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done All fixed. (SUDUSER)85 06:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done Glad to see the changes. However, I am still puzzled by the wording "bearing her 'cousin' Jonathan from Hong Kong." Why is the word "bearing" used here? Was she physically carrying him, or could this word be changed to "bringing" or "accompanied by"? --Orlady (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Changed it to "bringing." (SUDUSER)85 07:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I can support this now (although I would prefer to see writing that is not so larded with clichéd expressions).--Orlady (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Alright then thanks! (SUDUSER)85 14:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

There are no candidates at this time.

FLRC for List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes


Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes

Good article nominations

GAN for CSI: Crime Scene Investigation


GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:CSI: Crime Scene Investigation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello. I'll be doing the Good Article review for this article. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • The image of the logo in the infobox is not low resolution, so it needs to be scaled down.
Done.
  • For the lead, I think the first two paragraphs should be combined, as they deal with the same basic topic. Then, some more points of the article should be added in a new paragraph. Some points to consider adding might include small notes on characters, awards, DVD releases, style/music, and maybe the number of episodes thus far.
  • What makes this a reliable website?
On their about section they state that Television Heaven is a factual work and not a work of fiction. Pretty ambiguous I know, but its not like the site is being used as a source for exceptional claims.
Done.
  • The last paragraph of the reception section needs some citations for the ratings.
  • These sentences "This campaign was reminiscent to CBS's Jericho fans' reaction over the show being canceled. On that occasion, fans sent over 20 tons of nuts to CBS headquarters." from the public reaction section don't really add anything, so I think the article would be better off without them.
Trivia removed.
  • Ref #50 is dead. Can a replacement be found?
  • Maybe the CSI Effect section would be better as a sub-section under criticism, add the info from currently in that section to it. Then, it won't have to be mentioned twice.
  • The rating figures for the 7th and 8th seasons need sources.
  • There are a couple of things cited by the IMDB that need a more reliable source. For example, "Anthony E. Zuiker chose to set the series in Las Vegas because—as mentioned in the pilot —that city's crime lab is the second most active in the United States, after the Federal Bureau of Investigation lab in Quantico, Virginia."

The article could also use a really good copyedit, but I'm willing to do that if everything else gets sorted out. The article will be on hold for seven days to allow for improvements. Nikki311 18:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of the stuff that need better sources are on the DVD's extras, I'll try and find transcripts or locate the info on the DVDs.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 09:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The seven days are up, but I'll let the editors have a few more since progress is being made. I plan to close this review on June 30. Nikki311 02:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Alright. I went ahead and failed the article, but continue to work on this list and improve the article. Feel free to renominate in the future. Happy editing! Nikki311 21:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
GAN for Dinner Party (The Office)


GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dinner Party (The Office)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Well done.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    In the lead, it would be best to add (NBC) after "National Broadcasting Company". In the Production section, it would best to link "November 5, 2007" once, per here.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    Does Reference 13 cover all this ---> "If not for the writers strike, this episode would have completed filming successfully during the week of November 5, 2007. Also, a Christmas episode would have been produced and aired, but that script was discarded as the strike lasted past the 2007 holiday season, the time of year when the potential episode would have aired"?
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    If the above statement can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I've completed the requests, and yes, Ref 13 covers all of that. Since Jamie nominated the article, I'll let him have the honor of contacting you. Mastrchf (t/c) 02:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Or to speed up the process, I might as well do it. Mastrchf (t/c) 15:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Thank you for clarifying that Reference 13 covered all that info. and thank you for getting the other stuff I mentioned, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
GAN for Kath & Kim


This article is awaiting a review.

Peer reviews

PR for Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 2)


Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 2)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have attempted to source this article up and improve it as much as I can. Now I need outside comments in order to prepare the article for its GAN, which I plan to start after fixing the problems given in this PR. Any comments are welcome. Thanks, — Parent5446 ☯ (message email) 12:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • The lead needs to be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - now there is no mention of Reception or DVD in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
  • There seems to be too much empahsis in the lead on the plot - see WP:WEIGHT
  • A model article is useful for ideas on structure, refs, style, etc. I note that Smallville (season 1) is a FA and should be a good model.
  • Some of the episode summaries are much longer than others - I think they generally should be about the same length.
  • Article needs a copyedit, for example In addition, Mae and Ty Lee, are introduced as antagonists who help Azula to capture Aang. could be something like In addition, two other characters, Mae and Ty Lee, are introduced as antagonists who help Azula capture Aang. or The group escapes along with the Earth King and Bosco, where Katara heals Aang. where implies a location has been given, but it does not say where they escaped to, either include that or just drop "where" and replace it with "later" or even "and"
  • Be careful to provide context for the reader - not everyone who reads this will have seen the show or know what it is about, so giving some brief context and background is helpful - see WP:PCR
  • Since this is a work of fiction, make sure things are written from an out of universe perspective - see WP:IN-U
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
PR for Last of the Summer Wine


Last of the Summer Wine

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently listed as a good article and I now wish to receive feedback on what can be revised to bring it up to FA standards as I begin to revise.

Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 04:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Tasks Footer

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Parent5446_Bot/Task_Lists/WikiProject_Television&oldid=220697996"